Page 1 of 1
Thoughts on TRGS
Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2016 2:31 pm
I like it, though I'd want to play test it a little.
- * I'm using a talent approach with Vanagard, though in Vanagard there's no default passive values, you draw and match to generate your score. TRGS may be a better approach for an immortals game, where we can know what great deeds characters can start off doing and only Wyrd when they need to do something truly exceptional.
* It definitely gives traits more umph IMO.
* I'd like to see the Wyrd count for more. You should get a bonus for drawing more than one of your desired talent.
* I really like the METAS, I'm down the choices of succeeding at a cost.
* Mapping talents archetype boards is a good idea. It allows for a more narrative feel while not cutting the archetypes out from under the knees. This was my main concern about an only cinematic action game, you do that and the archetypes become meaningless, well aside from descriptive flair.
* I'm not sold on sub talents, then again, I'm not super into crunch these days. (I can do cruch however, I ran GURPS for years)
* Play testing this is definitely in order, though I'll have to focus my own on Vanagard.
Re: Thoughts on TRGS
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2016 3:41 pm
With a Trait range of 0-9 there is definitely a nice range of success given the current Essence/Destiny system. Actually come to think of it, with the Valknutt Void, we're 0-10 as of LotA. Right now Talents are added to your Trait score, but I see what you mean about Talents "drawn" as opposed to Talents "known" (or "count"). I think the tricky part will be to have the numbers align with skill checks right now. And there's the rub, the fact that TRGS is aiming to bridge the gap to RGS2 means there are a lot of design contraints I wouldn't normally consider if making TRGS from scratch. So a drawn count, despite it being a good idea, would skew the results more vs the existing RGS2 skill system. And if TRGS is to become the evolution, like a RGS2.5 then it needs to align with the exisiting success counts at different levels.
The sub-talents as you mention are a nod to Active powers from RGS2. They are there to simply make the transition without losing the backwards comparability. How does an immortal deal with Parry and Pierce if their Talent system doesn't acknowledge their existence. So that's the added complexity to make that evolution to Talents. Talents started out as my blueprint for RGS3 but I'm impatient to add metas to skills. I really want to see that sooner rather than later. After 2 playtests I see a way of adding the skill meta system onto RGS2 without using Talents, but I'd rather try a more ambitious approach before accepting a smaller compromise solution.
Well we have more tests this week, and with 3 systems presented, I suspect my group and I will spend many hours weighing the merits and seeing what works in the end.
Re: Thoughts on TRGS
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2016 8:00 am
We had a mixed test last night, 2 players on TRGS and 2 players on RGS2 and the Norn running RGS2 denizens. For the most part it went well, but there are obvious numerical scale inconsistencies which need to be addressed and normalized. The one thing that popped out is that the 9 Talents cover "everything" but choosing which applies isn't always black and white. I am wondering about the value of defining which Talent is used for different situations and perhaps creating a standard. So for example, regardless of the talent name or the trait, each set of 3 Talents which belong to a Trait would have pre-definitions such as the 1st talent is Attack on that Trait, second is Defend with respect to that Trait, and the last is your "health/misc/magic" on that Trait.
The next observation I had was that because the Physical trait didn't have "magic" associated with it, then the 3rd Mental and Spiritual Traits had to cover 3 magic spheres in boards that were much too tight. And lastly where would crafting come in? Lore?
We're prepping another all TRGS scenario in a few days.
Re: Thoughts on TRGS
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2016 2:36 pm
You could link each Talent to a specific action. I did this when I was running a Talent Based Fate of the Norns playtest in Phantasm and it worked well. For example:
Vargeisa the Fire Wolf (Letters represent runes because there's no rune fonts, that I know of, in these here forums).
Loki’s Apprentice: Deceive, Lead, Perceive
• g o u n
Sword Witch: Athletics, Fight, Seith: Hexing
• h f t r
Seasoned Traveller: Might, Sailing, Wisdom
• d b
So if Vargeisa is conning to someone we use Loki's Apprentice because it's linked to deceive. If she's swinging a sword of cursing someone with Seith she'd use the Sword Witch. If she's sailing, she'd use Seasoned Traveller.
If she's trying to do something not on that list...then she'll either just fail (she's not really a blacksmith) or she can sacrifice runes to try and succeed.
The really keen thing about this approach is that it allows the same talent to mean different things to different characters. For instance Gamil's Warrior talent could have Might, Fight, Intimidate, where Hardegon's Warrior could have: Athletics, Fight, Perceive. To Gamli being a Warrior is about raw power. To Hardegon it's about skill, technique and awareness.
Just my 2 cents.
Re: Thoughts on TRGS
Posted: Mon May 02, 2016 10:13 am
I think that if we didn't have a legacy/backwards-compatibility requirement, I would do it exactly like that. Sub-Talents would be key words that occur during a game night. I think RGS was hugely successful in keeping everyone engaged during the game since Wyrd/draws are random and there are a lot of inter-dweller synergies. This way players stay engaged and see what a new round holds in store for them. I'd like to use key-words to deepen immersion even further.
My pet peeve are cell phones during RPG games. So if the system requires you to trigger on key-word mentions, well then you'd better stay engaged if you want to do anything. More interrupt based than a hard initiative rank is what I had in mind for TRGS.
I'm going to give TRGS 1 more week of feedback, and if we don't get enough, I'll release immortals with RGS2 as originally planned. We don't have much time, and unless there's a big churn of feedback->design->testing rinse-repeat, a summer LotA conclusion won't be possible. I'd like it out for GenCon, so we need to get the show on the road.
All of these runic systems along with Vanagard's fully fleshed out system could make it into a rune mechanics game book (world agnostic) in the future. Chall, we're going to have a blast playing them all. There are so many untapped possibilities that if I could clone myself a few times....